Kyivans will be offered a referendum
Mykola Tomenko, Deputy Premier for Humanitarian Matters, recently made another sensational statement to the effect that construction in Kyiv must be approved by a local referendum. After such projects are determined by the cabinet the residents will be offered an opportunity to vote for or against them. At the same time, the deputy premier noted that the city authorities insist on their right to make such decisions, referring to Kyiv’s special status. Polls show that the Kyivans want the city administration to heed their views on the matter, stressed Mykola Tomenko.
In a word, a serious confrontation is in the offing. Local authorities’ construction projects have long become a problem of national importance and the fact that the central government has decided to do something about it inspires hope. The question is what is to be done and how, so the Kyivans can have a right to decide on the city’s visage. The Day asked experts for comment.
Mykola PARKHOMENKO, first deputy chairman, All-Ukraine Society for the Protection of Monuments:
Even the existing legal framework suffices for the general public to influence construction projects in the capital city. We all know that these laws are ignored. A referendum is a possibility, of course, but it’s perfectly clear without it where such projects are possible and where the populace will object. Simply every such project should be carried out in accordance with the law and decent people should hold the key posts. We have a new minister of culture and her deputies, but the same people man the cultural heritage protection service.
Of course, several amendments could be made. All procedures in a construction project, plot allocation and all the other paperwork, should be done in full public view. People should be warned in advance that instead of a public garden they’ll have a multistory apartment building. Imposing a moratorium on construction in the historic part of the city and on land allocation in the reserved suburban areas is a good idea. They’re right to plan the Dnipro Islands Reserve, as every such island is threatened by construction. Also, we must revise some of the existing land allocations where construction will start shortly. This must be done by the prosecutor’s office so concrete people are brought to account. As it is, every such case appears to involve the ministry of culture or the department for the protection of culture, without any names named. If we do this the right way we won’t need a referendum. If this matter is discussed, deputies from territorial communities (but not of the district councils!) and journalists should take part.
Yuriy KHUDIAKOV, first deputy chairman, Architects’ Union:
We can’t go to excesses. We don’t need a referendum as much as we need the public adequately informed. In other words, people must be explained why a certain structure should be built in a certain place. As for public discussions, they are necessary and the Architects’ Union is prepared to offer premises. However, experts rather than ordinary people should take part in such discussions. Otherwise it would be like people knowing nothing about medicine discussing a course of treatment. There are certain important aspects where only architects will know what to do.
Another thing is that investors must be informed in advance. Zoning data is being prepared. I mean information will be provided practically every quarter of the year, specifying what construction projects are allowed and where, including height and area. Investors will then know that a certain site can accommodate a hotel with only 100 rooms. If they need 500 rooms they’ll look for another site. At present, such limitations become known after large sums have already been invested. If this program is carried out and if construction regulations are observed, there will be fewer conflicts and disputes by far. Some matters will be decided by experts, but if a situation can be approached either way, then a poll is in order, so people can say what kind of structure they prefer on a given site. A referendum won’t solve the problem anyway, as people will only say yea or nay, without any comment. And comment is what we need.
Serhiy HRABOVSKY, philosopher and journalist:
This issue actually boils down to who wields power in Ukraine and how our authorities should work for the benefit of society. Without answering this question we won’t solve the problem of construction projects in Kyiv.
Without naming names, the powers that be have two characteristic features: a desire to make a fast buck, and an indifferent attitude to national culture and history. As a result, money and ignorance have the final say and society is hard put to change the situation. People have found the only possible way out; they put aside whatever they have to do and busy themselves with political actions. If this situation continues we’ll soon have something like a Latin American guerilla war. The state must do something to keep down the appetite of the capital’s high and mighty.
As for how to influence such construction projects, there could be special councils made up of experts and architects. Each such council should have the right of veto. And I have my doubts about the referendum. The matter under study doesn’t qualify for a referendum. Ordinary people won’t be able to pass judgment on a project’s concept or they may like part of it. How are they supposed to vote then? No, a referendum should consider simpler matters like restrictions on the mayor’s right to allocate plots. Here is food for thought.
Andriy ORLEAN, lawyer:
To begin with, the residents must be informed about every construction project, with official periodicals carrying such information specifying what is going to be built and where. If the public is timely informed it can voice its resentment.
The legislation must have it that, in case of such expressed resentment the construction project at issue is suspended. Here the problem is the extent of such resentment because there are always resentful people. Thus, if a rally of protest numbers 50 people then the residents of the nearby homes should be polled. If most of them are strongly against the project it must be suspended. The problem should be solved anyway.
Andriy DIACHENKO, lawyer:
I don’t think a referendum is necessary. A decision must be made in every case. This decision must be made by the local territorial community. If they approve, the terms and conditions of the project must be specified. For example, if the developer undertakes to repair neighboring fa Н ades or tubing the public attitude to the project will be totally different. I know what I’m talking about because there is a construction project underway near and affecting my home. I filed a complaint with the local prosecutor’s office, but they refused to accept it and told me to leave it in a box. Probably it will be picked and numbered, probably not; probably I’ll be notified of their decision, probably they won’t bother. I mean there’s no one to help people in a situation like this. In a word, if the state decides to give the tenants some rights, this should be done in regard to the territorial community. The people will figure out things on the spot.
